Human Performance Technology (HPT) Definitions & Assumptions

In 2004 a Presidential Task Force of ISPI identified Human Performance Technology (HPT) as "an integrated systems approach to improving human performance" (ISPI, 2004, p. 6).  As the editor of the third edition of The Handbook of Human Performance Technology, Pershing (2006) provided the following definition of HPT in his chapter titled "Human Performance Technology Fundamentals": "Human performance technology is the study and ethical practice of improving productivity in organizations by designing and developing effective interventions that are results-oriented, comprehensive, and systemic" (p. 6).

This improvement in performance can be either in the improvement in human performance of individual workers, the improvement of human performance through the design/operation of processes, and/or the improvement in human performance through organizational initiatives and environmental / societal endeavors.  In each case HPT provides a systematic approach to provide a comprehensive performance improvement initiative, not short-term, with a results-oriented evaluative framework.

The Presidential Task Force (2004) identified the following criteria to judge whether an initiative is an HPT initiative:

1. Is focused on valuable, measured results;
2. Considers the larger system context of people's performance;
3. Provides valid and reliable measures of the effectiveness of those applications;
4. Clearly describes applications grounded in prior research or empirical evidence (or are not discouraged by either one) so that they may be replicated under the conditions and by the means for which they were recommended (p. 6).

HPT operates on the following assumptions, as outlined in the Presidential Task Force (2004):

1. A technology is a set of empirical and scientific principles and their application
2. Human performance technology is the technology concerned with all variables which impact human performance
3. All organizational processes and practices impact the production of valued results, whether positively or negatively and whether those results go measured or unmeasured, acknowledged or not.  (Everything that an organization does affects what it accomplishes, whether or not the results are acknowledged or desirable.)
4. The purpose of all organizations is the same: to create value for their stakeholders; this is accomplished by aligning all processes, practices, and resources to maximize the production of that value.
5. We collaborate with and value the expertise of other disciplines; human performance technology becomes the integrator and multiplier. (p. 6)

The presidential Task Force report provides great information regarding the HPT Framework and is worth downloading and adding to your files - ISPI Task Force Report.  I would like to thank Guy Wallace for forwarding this link to me via Linkedin.  Guy is the President at EPPIC, Inc. and you can view his web page at http://eppic.biz/ for resources relating to instructional design and performance improvement.

References:

ISPI Presidential Initiative Task Force - Stage 1 (2004).  Retrieved from http://humanperformancetechnology.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/task-force-final-report-march-31-2004.pdf

Pershng, J. (2006).  Human Performance Technology Fundamentals.  In Pershing, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Performance Technology: Principles, Practices, Potential, (pp. 5-34).  San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Employee Dissatisfaction

The U.S. has been battling an economic downturn for well over two years.  During this time corporations have laid off workers and have forced remaining employees to do more with less.  Those left in the work force have been meeting production, but at what cost?

A current study by MetLife Insurance indicated that even though 43% of larger employers and 38% of smaller employers have met productivity gains in 2010 (Business Wire, 2011), employees are not satisfied.  This should not be received as unexpected since workers have been doing more with less, seeing their co-workers get laid off, and (in some cases) working for less.  It should be no surprise that a large portion of the work force is not satisfied.  Results from this current study indicated that "more than one-third (36%) of employees hope to work for a different employer in the next 12 months" (Business Wire, 2011, para. 2).

As economies turn downward it is a normal trend for corporations, large and small, to focus more heavily on short-term gains as an effort to survive the current business cycle downturn.  Once the economic indicators show signs of recovery corporations need to shift their concentration from short-term gains to long-term gains AND employee satisfaction.  During survival mode employee satisfaction is often put on the back-burner.  Corporations should incorporate, as part of the recovery plan, employee-satisfaction efforts.  Anthony J. Nugent, executive vice president, U.S. Business, Metlife, replicated these thoughts by stating that: "worker loyalty has been slowly ebbing over the last several years, and it is important that employers take action to turn the tide around" (Business Wire, 2011, para. 3).

As the economy slowly recovers there will be two forces competing against one another; unemployed workers looking for a new job, and employed unsatisfied workers looking to change jobs.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out, who will have the advantage?  The former will have to highlight their accomplishments on their resume, along with having strong references who are known in the industry that they are looking for employment, in order to get the advantage.  The later will have to rely on contacts they have formed in the corporations they are looking to transfer over to in order to get the advantage.  Ultimately, though, currently employed high performers will have the ultimate upper hand as Nugent identified: "there is no doubt that the rebounding economy will bring more opportunities for employees, especially the high performers" (Business Wire, 2011, para. 3).

Corporations have the upper-hand once the economy begins to recover.  Corporations will have plenty of applications to choose from when they are ready to rebuild.  The first companies will have the greatest advantage since the number of unemployed will be at its highest.  Late comers will have to begin to add incentives to gain employees as the unemployment numbers begin to decrease - of course we still have a while before this occurs.

The Met-Life study offers some recommendations for improving the diminished employee dis-satisfaction ratings.  These range from:

• Balancing Benefits Objectives
• Communications with the Generations
• Holistic Health
• Retirement Consultation

More detailed information on these recommendations can be found in the actual report available at www.metlife.com/benefitstrends

References:

Employee Loyalty Not Recession-Proof, According to MetLife Study. (2011, March 28).  Business Wire, Inc..  Retrieved from http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=253550.

Team Leadership

Team leadership or self-directed and self-managed teams: What is the best way to manage teams in organizational settings in today’s complex environment?

External team leadership relates to the influence and authority that a leader has over a team, one who is responsible for the teams’ performance (Mathieu et al., 2008).  External team leaders serve as coordinators of operations, as liaisons and guides for the team (Mathieu et al., 2008).  Druskat and Wheeler (2003) identified that external leaders were a forgotten group where organizations concentrated on building teams rather than supporting external team leaders.

Coaching is another form of leadership that could be used to assist and manage teams.  According to Mathieu et al. (2008) team coaching refers to “direct interaction with a team to help members make coordinated and task-appropriate use of their collective resources in accomplishing the team’s work” (p. 450).  Team coaches motivate team members through encouraging process gains, they provide consultative services assisting effective task strategies, and they educate / train team members.

Shared leadership refers to the distribution of leadership duties among team members.  This distribution among team members is based on the members experience and expertise.  Mathieu et al. (2008) identified that shared leadership “emerges from members’ collective knowledge, skills, and abilities” (p. 450).

Complexity theory indicates that some systems are self-organizing without a leader (Mitchell, 2009).  The concept of self-organization is obtained through complexity theory by utilization of emergence and autocatalytic interactions (Mitchell, 2009).  Emergence refers to nonlinear change in complex systems that foster innovation and self-directed change (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007).  Autocatalytic interactions involve both internal (within team) and external (external of team) interactions required for task accomplishment.

While teams are being used by organizations to adapt to complex environments the question arises as to what type of team leadership works best?  From your experience and/or knowledge, which type of team leadership is most effective for organizations?



References:
Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003).  Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managing work teams.  Academy of Management Journal, 46(4), 435-457. Retrieved from http://journals.aomonline.org/amj/
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008).  Team effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future.  Journal of Management, 34(3), 410-476.  doi: 10.1177/0149206308316061
Mitchel, M. (2009).  Complexity: A Guided Tour.  New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007).  Complexity leadership theory: Shifting from the industrial age to the knowledge era.  The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298-318.  doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002

Complexity Leadership Theory

Organizations are transitioning from a ‘change’ focused culture to a ‘complexity’ impacted culture.  IBM’s UK & Ireland Strategy and Transformation Leader, Howard Tollit, alluded to this in his findings from research of more than 1,500 CEO’s.  Tollit identified, in his significant findings, that “complexity has overtaken change as the main challenge facing CEOs across the globe” (“MT Leadership”, 2010).  Organizations are shifting from the industrial age model where physical assets were being managed, to the knowledge era where knowledge is accumulated and shared at a low cost (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007).  Smith (2011) identified that organizations today are faced with similar problems: adapting to rapidly changing technology, staying on top of the sheer volume of information, and filtering this vast amount of data for relevant information.  In this complex and interconnected environment, organizational problems cannot be solved using traditional top-down leadership models (Uhl-Bien & Marion, 2008), or by “a single individual or pre-planned streams of events” (Lichtenstein et al., 2006, p. 3). 

Complexity Leadership Theory (CLT) addresses the shortcoming of current leadership models by developing a new leadership model that influences organizational behavior rather than controlling it, and fosters conditions that enable future states rather than dictating them (Marion, & Uhl-Bien, 2001).  CLT comes from Complex Theory, which views complex systems as: “A system in which large networks of components with no central control and simple rules of operation give rise to complex collective behavior, sophisticated information processing, and adaptation via learning or evolution” (Mitchell, 2009, p. 13).  Mitchell (2009) indicated that some systems are self-organizing, with organization occurring without a leader. 

Complexity Leadership Theory expands on the concept of self-organization by utilization of the functions of emergence and autocatalytic interactions.  Emergence refers to nonlinear change in complex systems (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007), often occurring suddenly and unpredictably (Marion, 2008).  Emergence often begins with small groups, called aggregates, which form small networks.  These aggregates connect with other aggregate bodies, forming meta-aggregates (Marion, & Uhl-Bien, 2001) that provide interactions that spur innovation and self-directed change.  Marion and Uhl-Bien (2001) argued that emergence, termed “the bottom-up principle” (p. 401), provides “the greatest creativity, productivity, and innovation… out of people who are provided opportunities to innovate and network” (p. 401). 

Autocatalytic interactions refer to the dynamic in which people and departments interact with one another in interdependent networks (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001).  This interaction between people and departments is not directed by, but merely enabled by, leaders (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001).  Marion and Uhl-Bien (2001) summarized this dynamic by stating, “autocatalysis is what complex leaders work to enable (catalyze), and it is what complex behavior is all about” (p. 399).

Complex leaders can enable interaction between agents (people) that make up aggregates and between aggregates that make up meta-aggregates.  This is achieved by creating conditions where dynamic processes can emerge: enabling creativity, learning, and adaptability to flourish (Marion, 2008).

Incorporating complexity leadership theory into a system or organization requires a cultural shift in leaders, managers, and employees.  Velsor (2008) encouraged a new organizational culture as one way to foster leadership development.  This new cultural shift could initially be perceived as a limitation to complexity leadership theory.  Leaders and managers may find it difficult to relinquish control over their followers.  Likewise, followers may require time to realize that they have both control and new responsibilities for the course of the organization.   Followers may also be reluctant to accept control of and responsibility for the new course of the organization.

Complexity Leadership Theory would be idea to implement into small businesses or to teams.  However, transforming large corporations would require a large effort and possibly a re-engineering effort.  Incorporating CLT into departments within large corporations would be more manageable.  Beginning with transforming specific departments would be one way to implement CLT into a large corporation.  Building on the successes from one department would encourage implementing CLT theory into other departments until the corporation is operating on the CLT model.

• View Slidshare Presentation at:

 http://www.slideshare.net/JohnTurner5/complex-ldrtheory-8097228

References

Lichtenstein, B. B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J. D., & Schreiber, C. (2006).  Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems.  Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8(4), 2-12.  Retrieved from http://emergentpublications.com/ECO/about_eco.aspx? AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

MT Leadership visions: Capitalising on complexity. (2010, June 07).  Management Today. Retrieved from http://www.managementtoday.co.UK/news/1008266/mt-leadership-visions-capitalising-complexity/

Marion, R. (2008).  Complexity theory for organizations and organizational leadership. In Uhl-Bien, M. (Series Ed.), Complexity Leadership: Part I: Conceptual Foundations [Kindle version].

Marion, R. & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001).  Leadership in complex organizations.  The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 389-418.  http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/ journaldescription.cws_home/620221/description#description

Mitchell, M. (2009).  Complexity: A guided tour.  New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

Smith, S. (2011).  Information solutions in the age of diffraction.  Online, 35(1), 38-41.  Retrieved from http://www.infotoday.com/online/

Uhl-Bien, M. & Marion, R. (2008).  Introduction: Complexity leadership – a framework for leadership in the Twenty-First Century.  In Uhl-Bien, M. (Series Ed.), Complexity Leadership: Part I: Conceptual Foundations [Kindle version].

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007).  Complexity leadership theory: Shifting from the industrial age to the knowledge era.  The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 298-318.  doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002

Velsor, E. V. (2008).  A complexity perspective on leadership development.  In Uhl-Bien, M. (Series Ed.), Complexity Leadership: Part I:    Conceptual Foundations [Kindle version].

Training & Learning in a 'Pull' Environment

     Training is being impacted from the complex environment that companies currently operate in: globalization, in/out-sourcing, dispersed networks, social networking technologies, and new knowledge management technologies, to name a few.  Hagel III, Brown, and Davison (2010) discuss the transition from push to pull in their book The Power of Pull.  They explain push as the traditional methods of the organization defining our objectives.  “Push approaches begin by forecasting needs and then designing the most efficient systems to ensure that the right people and resources are available at the right time and the right place using carefully scripted and standardized processes” (p. 9).

     In contrast, Hagel III et al. (2010) described pull as operating on three primary levels.  “Pull helps us to find and access people and resources when we need them.  At a second level, pull is the ability to attract people and resources to you that are relevant and valuable…. we need to cultivate a third level of pull – the ability to pull from within ourselves the insight and performance required to more effectively achieve our potential.  We can use pull to learn faster and translate that learning into rapidly improving performance” (p. 9).  This idea of pull is reminiscent of the just-in-time quality improvement program where inventories are pulled, then reordered, only when needed.

     Applying this pull to training programs Hagel III et al. (2010) explained that: “from a push perspective, talent development is all about training programs – anticipating what employees will need and designing training programs in advance that can then be pushed out to employees at the right time” (p. 189).  This is where social media and collaborative learning comes into play.  Pull takes advantage of these platforms on the job.  Hagel III et al. expand on this by describing that “most learning occurs on the job as employees tackle challenging performance requirements and find new ways to deliver that performance” (p. 189). 

     Companies are no longer able to retain all of the knowledge and experience they require to operate within this complex environment.  Companies need to reach out to both internal and external experts to gain the knowledge required to address current problems.  Access to these experts is obtained through social media platforms and is done as the job is taking place.  This employee / expert relationship ends once the job has been completed as employees continue on the to next project or assignment.  Training will occur while conducting the complex assignments as employees work with internal and external experts, learning on the job with the help of mentors &/or coaches.  I like to call this type of training / learning ‘in-situ learning’.  Fostering this type of learning process can be conducted by providing the tools and access to the knowledge required to complete the job.  Training while completing the job will need to be addressed in a just-in-time fashion, providing assistance and access to information required to complete ones’ job.

References:

Hagel III, J., Brown, J. S., & Davison, L. (2010).  The power of pull: How small moves, smartly made, can set big things in motion.  New York, NY: Basic Books.

Current Trends, Job Security, Net Generation, 40+ Workforce

The Net Generation is the largest cohort in the workforce today.  “The work habits, learning styles, and collaboration skills of this group are already having a profound influence on organizations and that will only grow greater” (Galagan, 2010, p. 47).  Additionally, “New organizational entrants into the workplace of the knowledge economy have significantly different attitudes, abilities, and demands when compared to those of earlier entrants into the workplace of the industrial economy in terms of their desired relationship with and within organizations” (Novicevic & Buckley, 2001, p. 125).

Due to forces such as globalization, corporate downsizing, mergers & acquisitions, right-sizing, restructuring, deregulation, and the infusion of IT, the implicit social contract between an employee and the company has been irrevocably broken (Novicevic & Buckley, 2001).  Hence, the death of job security as we know it.

Novicevic and Buckley (2001) pointed out that “the 20+ generation members prefer to act on opportunities that are available ‘now and here’ and use that learning experience to exploit new opportunities” (p. 129).  Novicevic and Buckley further expand on the 20+ generation by identifying them as wanting “to be successful without having to ‘pay their dues’ in the traditional sense of corporate career development.  Furthermore, they demand that companies design the workplace of ‘cool’ corporate culture, where work is not mere completion of tasks but more a fun game that pays well…. corporate cultures are stretched to accommodate this new 20+ cohort, unlike the treatment given to those 40+ members, who entered the organization 25 years earlier” (p. 131).

This puts the strain on management and on corporations to balance this new workforce while maintaining their existing workforce.  Managers must be able to, as identified by Novicevic and Bucklys’ article (2010), “bring together this ‘cool’ subculture with the ‘plain’ subculture of the 40+ cohort in order to ensure that both subcultures’ cognitive resources are used to leverage and create organizational social and intellectual capital” (p. 132).

Recent surveys indicated that only “37 percent of employers had strategies to encourage late-career workers to stay past retirement” (Galagan, 2010, p. 47).  This is in contrast to the 44% of baby boomers who “say they plan to postpone retirement” (p. 47).  From these numbers, it looks like corporations are more focused on catering to the 20+generation, as opposed to finding a balance to meet the needs of the multiple generations that they employ.

Sources claim that by “2014, potentially half the workforce will be from Millennials” (Bingham & Conner, 2010, p. 14).  Additionally, soon the Generation Z will begin entering into the workforce with differing demands that will conflict with the demand of the Millennials (or Net Generation).  How do you provide a balance between the upcoming Generation Z (birth date after 1997), the Net Generation (Millennials) or Generation Y (1981-1997), the Generation X (1965-1980), and the Baby-Boomers (1946-1964)?

References

Bingham, T. & Conner, M. (2010).  The new social learning: A guide to transforming organizations through social media.  San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Galagan, P. (2010).  Bridging the skills gap: New factors compound the growing skills shortage.  Training + Development, February, pp. 44-49.

Novicevic, M. M., & Buckley, M. R. (2001).  How to manage the emerging generational divide in the contemporary knowledge-rich workplace.  Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14 (2), pp. 125-144.

Evaluation

Evaluation is often at the end of systematic performance models.  The Instructional Systems Design (ISD) model, sometimes referred to the ADDIE model, includes the following stages: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation.  Other disciplines practice models similar to the ADDIE model.  Six Sigma practices the DMAIC model: define, measure, analyze, improve, and control. In the DMAIC model measure would be comparable to evaluation.  Human Resource Development (HRD) practices analyze, propose, create, Implement, and assess.  In the HRD model, assess refers to assessment which is the same as evaluation in the ADDIE model.

These systematic performance models are often viewed as linear, stet-by-step, models.  By viewing these models this way they become ineffective at improving performance for the long-term.  Each model is presented to be cyclical and interactive.  This means that each model is designed as a continuous improvement cycle with dynamic interactions between each stage.  In the case of evaluation, this stage affects each of the other four stages in the process.  Evaluation begins during the initial analysis phase and continues through each stage, then re-cycles again, as improvements to the new improved cycle are incorporated.  Wang and Wilcox (2006) support this view indicating: “the larger view of evaluation may not be treated as a separate phase during the process…. It is indeed an ongoing effort throughout all phases of the ADDIE process and culminating at the last phase” (p. 528).

Shrock and Geis identified evaluation as a “process of collecting information and feeding it back to those who need the information so that the system can succeed” (as cited in Stolovitch & Keeps, 1999, p. 185).  Evaluation should be designed to provide feedback during each stage in the process so that improvements can be made to the process.

Evaluation comes in two forms: formative evaluation and summative evaluation.

Scriven (1991) identified formative evaluation to be used “to provide information on improving program design and development” (as cited in Wang & Wilcox, 2009, p. 529).  Wang and Wilcox identified that the purpose of formative evaluation was “to identify weakness in instructional material, methods, or learning objectives” (p. 529). Formative evaluation can be used to evaluate the instructional methods during a training program.

Following the training program summative evaluation will be used to determine the long-term effectiveness of the program and its instructional methods, including learning transfer.  Brown and Gerhardt (2002) described summative evaluation as those “efforts that assess the effectiveness of completed interventions in order to provide suggestions about their use” (p. 952).  A training program can be evaluated by its impact on the organization and its long-term effectiveness through summative evaluation.

A successful evaluation is one that utilizes both formative evaluation and summative evaluation.  Evaluation needs to be viewed as an iterative process that affects each of the stages in the training process that it is measuring.  Each systematic performance improvement endeavor needs to be addressed as a continuous improvement cycle with a strong emphasis on evaluation.  Evaluation is the key component that makes the systematic performance improvement process a continuous effort, allowing improvements to be made to the process during each stage.

REFERENCES
Brown, K. G. & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002).  Formative evaluation: An integrative practice model and case study.  Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 951-983.

Stolovitch, H. D. & Keeps, E. J. (1999).  Handbook of human performance technology: Improving individual and organizational performance worldwide (2nd ed.).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer.

Wang, G. G. & Wilcox, D. (2006).  Training evaluation: Knowing more than is practiced.  Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 528-539.